VonNoble

In keeping with GregNJ.....I just interviewed a stage actor for a class project and he pointed to the very same concept. He has also done work in films and noted the difference as an actor between the two types of performance. He noted with film acting - he does not need much rehearsal time. One big surprise to him was how much rehearsal was required for a stage production - he had to adjust his style EXPRESSLY because there are no "do overs" in a live performance. You have to be right the first time - every time. Different topic but related: I recently saw the play Equivocation (by Bill Cain) ........I had read the script several times and really could not see any way that could EVER be produced as it was just too, too much everything (dialogue, concentric plots inside of plots...) My solution was to find some place (any place) performing that script and see if I was able to follow it at all as a live production. I did. It was draining. Having read the script I was able to follow it. I noted that eventually everyone around me "got it" more or less....but it is one vote for LIVE. This was intended to be viewed as a three or four dimensional presentation. I don't think film would have been as effective. von

I agree with you on this point. I agree that people who hold belief in a religious faith are quite capable of thinking, of thinking for themselves, of choosing what is best for them. Just like those holding no religious affiliation. The brain functions the same for all involved. I suspect (maybe) the emotions flair up for anyone when confronted by statements that whatever the choice made (to believe or not believe) is met: YOU ARE WRONG. That hackles anyone probably, yes? Those who believe protesting that non-believers "don't get it" ...and non-believers implying those who choose to believe "are incapable of independent thought." Those things might prove to be a correct conclusion for other reasons but certainly not solely upon belief or lack of it. Good point. von

...another two-way street conundrum.... von

Or perhaps it is good that it is allowed to evolve..... von

Jonathan H.B. Lobl, I have been remiss in not noting this earlier. I appreciate greatly you have made yourself available to Pete. That is the best of ULC - and I am grateful to you. von

Hello Dan56, THANK YOU for keeping the dialogue open. We have a long history of helping each other through the confusion. I appreciate that you have always offered respect to my non-belief in the past - and have publicly thanked you for that courtesy. It is both irksome and confusing however, especially knowing your background - that you would come to any discussion (EVER) between a non-believer and a believer using a bible quote, invoking the name of God or Christ because you are more aware than most that these things have no place on the bridge of understanding in the world of a non-believer. I did hold you to a higher standard because I felt you would better understand the impact of doing such a thing. When anyone (not you specifically) comes towards me toting a Bible the very positioning of it implies I don't already know it (and frankly know it a darn sight better than many of them). It feels as if the real message is: "me and God are here to tell you this cuz you obviously need tellin' sort of thing." That may not be your intent when people do that - however, that is the irksome to non-believers. The assumption that we do not know what you are about to say. Additionally, when a reference book (that we do not share in common) is used - it removes the thoughts presented away from "free thinking" and towards indoctrinated regurgitation on the sliding scale of how we (all) present our thoughts. I can tell you why I am for or against the Second Amendment to the Constitution without quoting it. The quoting part is rarely necessary and is a waste of space and time most of the time. In a posting where I noted honestly that I had worked for years - in a heavily Christian area ...to help women who were abused.....and the abuse happened at more than one church, by more than one pastor....your response was defending Christianity and yourself. ( As in you don't condone it) I already knew that. That was not news. I rather resented that you would think me capable of concluding that about you. So it seemed to be a purposeful attempt to obfuscate the conversation. If that was not the case - than I apologize for adding to the confusion. It seemed, to me, you were ignoring the victims. I know you would not condone it or do it or ever say a thing other than it is wrong. It seemed to me however by making the emphasis on Christianity you missed the boat. It was never about you, me or the defense of Christianity. I even interjected "bowling league" into my discussion to point out it doesn't matter the label so don't defend the label.....it is about the victim. And sensitivity. If someone in this Forum is hurting because the bowling league of XYZ faith hurt them I would suggest it is as simple as this: 1) the victim does not need to hear from anyone in XYZ bowling league - for any reason at this time 2) XYZ bowlling league people who did not perpetrate the hurtful action should not defend the league to anyone.....the first and foremost concern should always be the victim. The survivor deserves the attention - not the perpetrator (and the innocent members of the posse.) . All that can be sorted out by those who are helping the healing. When I am standing in the middle of the bridge to meet you half way and see what together we can do to foster healing we do so, as we have in the past as equals who care. I have plenty of baggage from decades of fake Christians trying to bash me. I have suffered plenty of unwarranted attacks from fake Christ-followers and I have yet to lump them into a group I hate or dislike. I am tired of wave after wave of them viciously condemning me solely on the fact I am adamant in my acceptance of others (all others) as my equal. It is exhaustive but I will always stand on the bridge. I believe that the message of their God expects you to do no less. In my case, it is a standard I choose for myself. Either way, the important thing is we be willing to listen and learn from one another respecting the moral fiber shared. .. von

Thanks for the posting. I can see your point. It was good of you to share it. I guess to some extent any of us would do that on a social level when looking at future relationships. Personal relationships aside - I guess i am thinking of social conventions in public gatherings. Example: If i went to a town hall gathering. I think I would give my opinion about zoning or whatever - without mentioning which political party I was affiliated with...for most people I am thinking they would make the point about zoning based on what is relevant to the topic of zoning. The point I obviously did not make well - (thx for helping me to clarify) - at times we point out things to protect ourselves, or set the stage.....when perhaps we no longer need to do so. My brother-in-law was really, really proud he fulfilled a life long dream of going to Australia for three months. By golly for ten years he was still milking it for milage in every conversation possible. I have a sister that tells everyone she has three kids. Why that is relevant - I have no idea but I have heard her mention often "she is the mother of three"...and people nod as if that means anything. I can appreciate that sometimes you run into people who are ignorant and behave inappropriately. I am pretty sure they are the same ones who are ridiculous when interacting with the rest of us too - - they just find other things to be ignorant about with us. I can fully "get" shielding yourself from them by clearing the air right from the start. There is NO DOUBT that saves you some wear and tear. One of those rules I keep seeing in engineering offices is don't cross the bridge before you get to it. It might be THEM and their issue that needs to adjust - not you. Maybe you are just really, really nice and very, very considerate. (That is a good thing.) Then again - I am not sure I would work too hard to try and redirect my-brother-in-law....or those like him. I think everyone can see him for what he is...and most people are kind to him. I would put money on the fact when you tell him you are gay - his only noticeable reaction would be to speak louder ..... von

I wonder - if a kid is mean....again....are they just born with angry little temperaments? Or do they pick that up along the way? Like an older sibling harasses them and they start fighting back early to get their share of the food or whatever? To the extent a kid IS TAUGHT awful stuff - what recourse is there? Can a kid be taken away because the parents are just hateful people? It seems that would hamper them forever in life so isn't that some kind of abuse? Seriously - is there a venue to remove a kid even when it is not physical. I once was assigned to represent our company on the Board of a Child Abuse Council for the local city. I had to resign. After two meetings I resigned. So I don't know what the law can do or not do - I simply could not wrap my mind around any of it. von

Actually I am sort of taken aback. I have not been around little kids much. I think they are kind of foreign little creatures to me. I never know what to expect from them. I don't understand them. They seem pretty willing to have fun almost always. And I find I can bribe most of them with ice cream. That's pretty much what I know. I have no clue how classroom bullies exist. Then again- if I ran up against one - I put up a fight (not always successfully) as a kid. That lesson taught me to go toe to toe with them QUICK in life later on. I had four or five pair of glasses busted in as many months as a kid. I never started the fight....but I never hid from one either. I never threw the first punch. But I had a green light after someone hit me to bang them back hard. My father said that was the only way to stop them. I believed him in that regard for awhile. My mother insisted that out thinking them was better. I guess that makes me a switch hitter (pun intended) with bullies. Punch or bob and weave...or sidestep ...or make them laugh if possible - whatever one seemed most effective. As far as in the classroom - you caught me by surprise. I sort of thought teachers were trained to watch for that nonsense and shut it off. OBVIOUSLY I have not been IN a classroom or school for a very long time. von

Okay....you made me laugh von

Pondering a thought... isn't the effort by strangers to help victims in Las Vegas... tearing up their clothing to make temp bandages.... ....driving water in their own vehicle ... water puchased by their own wallet .... ... should that not be counted as tithe? should not the local church note that they gave that aid some way so they get credit? von

Pete is articulate and needs no help from me... and I think wisely walked away. I will address this only for myself. i have long believed Jesus would not approve of many churches carrying his name. They are not anywhere close to the message if Jesus. Many people are hurt horribly by trust given to authority and they leave feeling betrayed. (I am not referring to Pete or myself)... but it is real and damaging ( and not unique to Christianity) your premise that the message of Christ needs no defense doesn't go too far with the multitudes who have lived thru atrocities brought upon them by the good bringers of Christ's message. i served on the Board of a batted womens shelter for years... there were plenty of horrors inflicted in Christs name by clergy for example including ....their need to submit to the beatings... the rape within the confines of marriage as they had " no right" to deny their husband.... or to take the beatings cuz the deserved them. You may not agree with one of those things.... however IS it that difficult to understand why your love of Christ might cause them a little angst? You can say whatever you like but their experience with the representatives of Christ are going to face lots of distrust talk is cheap ... I never get why people with labels do not see they will be viewed in terms of the least of their brothers... by people hurt lots of times in lots of ways ....As a Christian you are part of them and not speaking independently.... it defines your life decisions... your values it might be be helpful to just accept that they were hurt and start there... you will always be judged by the other ....by THEIR understanding of your label ONE Of MY " gay" friends ( only for quick reference I would never use that qualifier in real life) railed about people's response to him being gay.... I can't help but wonder why he felt the need to stick that into the mix.... he might NOT need to put that out there as the most important part of getting to know about him... then gripe because he got all the baggage that comes with that Hope it helps in some way von

EXCELLENT... totally new-to-me concept.... but amazingly rich... clears up more than a couple of issues I have pondered over for years ... btw.... REALLY good explanation Since I am currently enrolled at the university..and obviously did not get anywhere near these concepts my last two stints in college...would this fall into psychology ( I am lining up my course load for next semester) ( I am enjoying taking courses completely new to me) I am dazzled with this concept thx von

Okay! Now this is what I was getting at...to a lesser extent. So if a child is being TAUGHT thusly - is it safe for me to assume that NATURALLY a child does not arrive without bias. Is that much right (thanks for going slow on this one) - By nature children to do not focus on differences in people, skin types etc? That is learned? Does hate or conversely - kindness - come naturally to kids? Is it a temperament they are born with or a skill set they learn? (maybe it is some other option - and I am clueless) von

First a great laugh - as I DID NOT see the gun coming in that discussion. Thanks for that. Second - this entire idea that "how church makes us feel" sort of (I may not be getting this but if I am) it sure as heck clears up (or starts to clear) up quite a bit of cloudiness in understanding all this. von

This is VERY interesting. So are you saying ( I have a decent command of the language but sometimes new ideas get stuck running thru my brain) - are we sort of wired to be believe as we do? (or since it might be emotional and or subconscious ...maybe HOTwired is a better choice of words) THAT is a big newsflash to my brain. von

Bravo! I agree (with Mahatma)....and better understand the penchant use of labels in discussing religion a bit better. It makes sense. I can also better understand why you chose a hybrid label....considering your reasoning that is a good choice Thx. von

Thanks for joining in on this one as you have far more of a background on this than I ever will. IS THERE a line in the sand when experts would see something as indoctrination? I am thinking of cult kids - who never have a chance to know "normal or healthy" by way of growing up. Surely there is some criteria for determining when such things cross over a line into abuse? Or maybe not - I just assume there is an imaginary line in the sand. von

Yes. This is what I am seeing as well. Thank you

Pete, Thank you! Thank you very much for allowing this open dialogue which in my opinion is a very good thing FOR ALL OF US. I really, really admire your strength. von

When we instruct a child when is it a lesson and when is it an imposition of OUR view, OUR way, OUR belief? When is it teaching and when is it indoctrination? What is the measuring tool between those? Some parents in the world - let kids use knives at a early age because they will remember the lesson if they feel hurt. Some parents think over-protecting kids goes against the natural order - the weak and stupid ones are suppose to die. I am just curious. How do you know when you are teaching them for their own sake........and when is it for the parent's sake.....so they become little conformists? Maybe that is the right way to go. But I wonder if there is a line that is crossed between lesson and something not helpful? Disclosure : I have no biologic kids so I have no dog in the hunt by way of experience. I have had foster kids but that is not exactly the same thing...and I only had older kids. By then they had a whole bag full of lessons I didn't teach them. von

I applaud your being open minded in being any version of agnostic as, of course nothing can be proved - so that seems reasonable and logical. You are in good company as Thomas Jefferson agreed with you regarding the teachings of Christ. The Jeffersonian Bible is ONLY the actual quotes of Christ. Philosophically, I see very little difference between Christianity and many positive religions. For example I see a pretty significant overlap between the MESSAGE of Christ and the message of Buddha. It is a full time job to live up what is asked of any of us to choose on either Buddhist or Christian as a philosophical way of life. We have ZERO occasion to (or time to) judge others. I have a full time job cleaning up my own self. We all do. So what is the point of limiting the affiliation with a label? (that part I am serious about) - - I have no problem with anyone doing so. I respect that decision. I just don't understand it. Thanks in advance if you can help me understand . You have done well up to now helping me along. von